The thirtieth chapter of Proverbs begins with this title: “The
words of Agur, the son of Jakeh;” and the thirty-first, with “the words
of king Lemuel;” with respect to which some conjecture that Solomon
describes himself under these appellations; others, that these chapters
are the productions of persons whose real names are prefixed. Scripture
history, indeed, affords us no information respecting their situation
and character; but there must have been sufficient reason for regarding
their works in the light of inspired productions, or they would not have
been admitted into the sacred canon.
They are called _Massa_, a term frequently applied to the undoubted
productions of the prophetic Spirit; and it is not improbable that the
authors meant, by the adoption of this term, to lay claim to the
character of inspiration. A succession of virtuous and eminent men,
favoured with divine illuminations, flourished in Judea till the final
completion of the sacred code; and, most likely, many more than those
whose writings have been preserved. Agur may then have been one of those
prophets whom Divine providence raised up to comfort or admonish his
chosen people; and Lemuel may have been some neighbouring prince, the
son of a Jewish woman, by whom he was taught the Massa contained in the
thirty-first chapter. These, of course, can only be considered as mere
conjectures; for, in the absence of historic evidence, who can venture
to pronounce with certainty? The opinion, however, that Agur and Lemuel
are appellations of Solomon, is sanctioned by so many and such
respectable writers, that it demands a more particular examination.
The knowledge of names was anciently regarded as a matter of the highest
importance, in order to understand the nature of the persons or things
which they designate; and, in the opinion of the rabbins, was preferable
even to the study of the written law. The Heathens paid considerable
attention to it, as appears from the Cratylus of Plato; and some of the
Christian fathers entertained very favourable notions of such knowledge.
The Jewish doctors, it is true, refined upon the subject with an amazing
degree of subtilty, grounding upon it many ridiculous ideas and absurd
fancies; yet it is unquestionable that many of the proper names in
Scripture are significant and characteristic. Thus the names Eve, Cain,
Seth, Noah, Abraham, Israel, &c, were imposed by reason of their being
expressive of the several characters of the persons whom they represent.
Reasoning from analogy, we may infer that all the proper names in the
Old Testament, at their original imposition, were intended to denote
some quality or circumstance in the person or thing to which they
belong; and though many, from transference, have ceased to be personally
characteristic, yet are they all significative.
As the custom of imposing descriptive names prevailed in the primitive
ages, it is not impossible that Agur and Lemuel may be appropriated to
Solomon, and Jakeh to David as mystic appellations significative of
their respective characters. It is even some confirmation of this
opinion, that Solomon is denominated Jedidiah (beloved of the Lord) by
the Prophet Nathan; and that in the book of Ecclesiastes, he styles
himself Koheleth, or the Preacher. Nevertheless, this hypothesis does
not appear to rest upon a firm foundation. It is foreign to the
simplicity of the sacred penmen, and contrary to their custom in similar
cases, to adopt a mystic name, without either explaining it, or alleging
the reasons for its adoption. In the names Eve, Cain, Seth, Noah, &c,
before alluded to; in the appellation Nabal; in the enigmatical names in
the first chapter of Hosea; in the descriptive names given to places, as
Beersheba, Jehovah-jireh, Peniel, Bethel, Gilgal; and in many other
instances, the meaning of the terms is either explained, or the
circumstances are mentioned which led to their selection. When Solomon
is called Jedidiah, it is added that it was “because of the Lord;” and
when he styles himself Koheleth, an explanatory clause is annexed,
describing himself “the son of David, the king of Jerusalem.” But if
Solomon be meant by the titles Agur and Lemuel, he is so called without
any statement of the reasons for their application, and without any
explanation of their import; a circumstance unusual with the sacred
writers, and the reverse to what is practised in the book of Proverbs,
where his proper name, Solomon, is attributed to him in three different
places. Nor is anything characteristic of the Jewish monarchs
discoverable in the terms themselves. Jakeh, which denotes _obedient_,
is no more applicable to David than to Nathan, or any other personage of
eminent worth and piety among the Israelites. The name of Agur is not of
easy explanation; some giving it the sense of _recollectus_, that is,
recovered from his errors, and become penitent; an explanation more
applicable to David than to Solomon. Simon, in his lexicon, says it may
perhaps denote “him who applies to the study of wisdom;” an
interpretation very suitable to the royal philosopher, but not supported
by adequate authority; and in his Onomasticon he explains it in a
different manner. Others suppose that it means _collector_; though it
has been argued, that, as it has a passive form, it cannot have an
active sense. But this is not a valid objection, as several examples may
be produced from the Bible of a similar form with an active
signification. If such be its meaning, it is suitable to Solomon, who
was not the collector or compiler, but the author, of the Proverbs. With
respect to the name Lemuel, it signifies one that is for God, or devoted
to God; and is not, therefore, peculiarly descriptive of Solomon. It
appears, then, that nothing can be inferred from the signification of
the names Agur and Lemuel in support of the conjecture, that they are
appellations of Solomon. The contents, likewise, of the two chapters in
question strongly militate against this hypothesis.
When all these circumstances are taken into consideration, together with
the extreme improbability that Solomon should be denominated three times
by his proper name, and afterward, in the same work, by two different
enigmatical names, we are fully warranted in rejecting the notion, that
the wise monarch is designed by the appellations Agur and Lemuel. And it
seems most reasonable to consider them as denoting real persons.
words of Agur, the son of Jakeh;” and the thirty-first, with “the words
of king Lemuel;” with respect to which some conjecture that Solomon
describes himself under these appellations; others, that these chapters
are the productions of persons whose real names are prefixed. Scripture
history, indeed, affords us no information respecting their situation
and character; but there must have been sufficient reason for regarding
their works in the light of inspired productions, or they would not have
been admitted into the sacred canon.
They are called _Massa_, a term frequently applied to the undoubted
productions of the prophetic Spirit; and it is not improbable that the
authors meant, by the adoption of this term, to lay claim to the
character of inspiration. A succession of virtuous and eminent men,
favoured with divine illuminations, flourished in Judea till the final
completion of the sacred code; and, most likely, many more than those
whose writings have been preserved. Agur may then have been one of those
prophets whom Divine providence raised up to comfort or admonish his
chosen people; and Lemuel may have been some neighbouring prince, the
son of a Jewish woman, by whom he was taught the Massa contained in the
thirty-first chapter. These, of course, can only be considered as mere
conjectures; for, in the absence of historic evidence, who can venture
to pronounce with certainty? The opinion, however, that Agur and Lemuel
are appellations of Solomon, is sanctioned by so many and such
respectable writers, that it demands a more particular examination.
The knowledge of names was anciently regarded as a matter of the highest
importance, in order to understand the nature of the persons or things
which they designate; and, in the opinion of the rabbins, was preferable
even to the study of the written law. The Heathens paid considerable
attention to it, as appears from the Cratylus of Plato; and some of the
Christian fathers entertained very favourable notions of such knowledge.
The Jewish doctors, it is true, refined upon the subject with an amazing
degree of subtilty, grounding upon it many ridiculous ideas and absurd
fancies; yet it is unquestionable that many of the proper names in
Scripture are significant and characteristic. Thus the names Eve, Cain,
Seth, Noah, Abraham, Israel, &c, were imposed by reason of their being
expressive of the several characters of the persons whom they represent.
Reasoning from analogy, we may infer that all the proper names in the
Old Testament, at their original imposition, were intended to denote
some quality or circumstance in the person or thing to which they
belong; and though many, from transference, have ceased to be personally
characteristic, yet are they all significative.
As the custom of imposing descriptive names prevailed in the primitive
ages, it is not impossible that Agur and Lemuel may be appropriated to
Solomon, and Jakeh to David as mystic appellations significative of
their respective characters. It is even some confirmation of this
opinion, that Solomon is denominated Jedidiah (beloved of the Lord) by
the Prophet Nathan; and that in the book of Ecclesiastes, he styles
himself Koheleth, or the Preacher. Nevertheless, this hypothesis does
not appear to rest upon a firm foundation. It is foreign to the
simplicity of the sacred penmen, and contrary to their custom in similar
cases, to adopt a mystic name, without either explaining it, or alleging
the reasons for its adoption. In the names Eve, Cain, Seth, Noah, &c,
before alluded to; in the appellation Nabal; in the enigmatical names in
the first chapter of Hosea; in the descriptive names given to places, as
Beersheba, Jehovah-jireh, Peniel, Bethel, Gilgal; and in many other
instances, the meaning of the terms is either explained, or the
circumstances are mentioned which led to their selection. When Solomon
is called Jedidiah, it is added that it was “because of the Lord;” and
when he styles himself Koheleth, an explanatory clause is annexed,
describing himself “the son of David, the king of Jerusalem.” But if
Solomon be meant by the titles Agur and Lemuel, he is so called without
any statement of the reasons for their application, and without any
explanation of their import; a circumstance unusual with the sacred
writers, and the reverse to what is practised in the book of Proverbs,
where his proper name, Solomon, is attributed to him in three different
places. Nor is anything characteristic of the Jewish monarchs
discoverable in the terms themselves. Jakeh, which denotes _obedient_,
is no more applicable to David than to Nathan, or any other personage of
eminent worth and piety among the Israelites. The name of Agur is not of
easy explanation; some giving it the sense of _recollectus_, that is,
recovered from his errors, and become penitent; an explanation more
applicable to David than to Solomon. Simon, in his lexicon, says it may
perhaps denote “him who applies to the study of wisdom;” an
interpretation very suitable to the royal philosopher, but not supported
by adequate authority; and in his Onomasticon he explains it in a
different manner. Others suppose that it means _collector_; though it
has been argued, that, as it has a passive form, it cannot have an
active sense. But this is not a valid objection, as several examples may
be produced from the Bible of a similar form with an active
signification. If such be its meaning, it is suitable to Solomon, who
was not the collector or compiler, but the author, of the Proverbs. With
respect to the name Lemuel, it signifies one that is for God, or devoted
to God; and is not, therefore, peculiarly descriptive of Solomon. It
appears, then, that nothing can be inferred from the signification of
the names Agur and Lemuel in support of the conjecture, that they are
appellations of Solomon. The contents, likewise, of the two chapters in
question strongly militate against this hypothesis.
When all these circumstances are taken into consideration, together with
the extreme improbability that Solomon should be denominated three times
by his proper name, and afterward, in the same work, by two different
enigmatical names, we are fully warranted in rejecting the notion, that
the wise monarch is designed by the appellations Agur and Lemuel. And it
seems most reasonable to consider them as denoting real persons.